gwen: the president evolves on gay marriage. the tea party takes indiana. and the foiled al qaeda bomb plot. tonight on "washington week." >> i just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that i think same sex couples should be able to get married. gwen: the president confirmed what his friends and foes long suspected. but did the vice president force his hand? and does mitt romney want to change the subject? >> i have the same view on marriage that i had when i was governor and that i've expressed many times. i believe marriage is relationship between a man and a woman. gwen: celebration in some quarters, dismay in others.

in indiana, a venerable republican senator falls. >> serving the people of indiana in the united states senate has been the greatest honor of my public life. gwen: is the tea party back? and the mysterious double agent who foiled al qaeda. what did we learn? >> i can tell you that we should never, ever let our guard down. gwen: covering the week, john dickerson of "slate" magazine and cbs news. major garrett of "national journal." susan davis of "usa today." and pierre thomas of abc news. >> award-winning reporting and analysis, covering history as it happens, live from our nation's capital, this is "washington week with gwen ifill." produced in association with "national journal." corporate funding for "washington week" is provided

by -- >> we know why we're here. >> to chart a greener path in the air and in our factories. >> to find cleaner, more efficient ways to power flight. >> and harness o technology for new energy solutions. >> around the globe, the people of boeing are working together to build a better tomorrow. >> that's why we're here. >> align -- a line is a power this will thing. it connects the global economy to your living room. cleaner air to stronger markets. factory floors to less crowded roads. today's progress to tomorrow's promise. norfolk southern. one line, infinite

possibilities. corporate funding is also provided by prudential financial, at&t, rethink possible. additional funding is provided by the anberg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to pbs stations from viewers like you. thank you. once again, live from washington, moderator gwen ifill. gwen: good evening. well, that was some week. and by the time it ended, both barack obama and mitt romney had been temporarily at least knocked off course. at that t started with vice president joe -- it started with vice president joe biden on "meet the press." >> i am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual -- are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties, and quite frankly, i don't see much of a discussion

beyond that. gwen: the vice president's use of the term "marriage" not say "civil unions" excited two bases. liberal democrats and conservative republicans. three days later, the president announced a decision he had apparently already made. that he, too, supports same sex marriage. >> malia and sasha, they've got friends whose parents are same sex couples. malia and sasha, it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently. it doesn't make sense to them. and frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change of perspective. gwen: but the president added states should still sort this out for themselves. so in the end, which side came out ahead in a week in which neither was focusing on the economy, john? >> i think probably you would have to say the president. he had come to this decision for this -- before this week's events but it was on the white house calendar. there was not a same sex marriage firestorm listed down

for this week. saturday, he had launched his campaign. monday, the campaign had started a $25 million ad campaign that was focused around the president, what he had done for the economy, the bailout, the car industry, and then the president launched a to-do list telling congress what they needed to do to put congress on them. that was all blown to the side. this became the issue. they had to move up -- what the president was noodling about the right venue to announce this decision and how to do it, he wanted to show that it was a personal decision, not a plcy decision and wouldn't -- a policy sigs and -- policy decision and advisors felt like what he was doing was leading and the president wasn't and there was a move by the campaign it try and fix that. in the end, though, the president, this helps him in two ways. it helps him with raising money among a lot of gay activists who are very interested in this decision, with young voters. it gives them a sense that this is the guy from 2008 that they remember. this is the guy who had things

to say that were big and bold and moved things. the other off-balance moment of the week was for mitt romney. the story came out in "the washington post" about his period in high school and a prep school where he was sort of the ring leader of a bullying event of a young kid, held him down, cut his hair. there's really no upside to that story for mitt romney of course. but the question is whether it really matters. in an election about the economy. gwen: that's what i want to ask you about, major. who was more off topic i suppose this week, mitt romney was still trying to introduce himself to america, and now hearing this theme, or barack obama who got his message -- less than a week ago that he formally launched -- >> what onsaid, the white house and campaign had a series of ideas and concepts they wanted to forward. but there's nothing in the course of this week that tells me the white house lost anything by focus on gay marriage. for two reasons. every day spent in the political discussion of this general election campaign on something other than the economy is a net plus for the

chicago-based re-election headquarters and barack obama. and a net negative for the boston-based headquarters of mitt romney. mitt romney's only path to the white house is pachede through the economy -- paved through the economy and a discussion thereof. any other discussion is harmful. look at mitt romney's -- gwen: how bad it is. >> look at the reaction to this. i don't want to talk about gay marriage. what do i want to talk about? the economy. i played hockey as a kid and i grew up in san diego. a kick save and a beauty. it was either a sick calf and a beauty for -- a kick save and a yutey for the white house or something the president was talking about and most public venue in washington, "meet the press." look at that entire transcript. previous to his comments on gay marriage. every single thing is on message. what you have to believe, if you believe that joe biden wandered off the reservation, is entirely consistent with the re-election message and then suddenly he goes bonkers and says something about gay marriage the white house can't

live with. i fundamentally don't believe it. this was consistently helpful for the white house. all this week. >> that's a good point. whether it was planned or not, it was -- >> it worked to their net advantage. >> we can see how the politics of this play out in the end. the argument for what happened with biden was it was an untenable position to say out loud. the president's position on same sex marriage was he had made all of these moves to give greater rights to same sex couples in all kinds of different venues. gwen: and the defense of marriage act, roll back don't ask, don't tell. and he has done everything -- >> everything else significant, yes. and he had done all of those things. the question is why are you stopping here? and biden, as it was explained to me in my reporting that he had had these experiences. and he felt like he had evolved. he had come farther than the president because he voted for don't ask, don't tell. voted for the defense of marriage act. gwen: and he said when i asked joe biden during the vice-presidential debate 3 1/2 years ago about this, he said neither the president or i

support same sex marriage. so this has been a big evolution. and why don't you guys jump in. >> how do you think it does play in election? if it's about the economy does gay marriage become an issue in november or does it disappear? >> the country has evolved so far from the very tortured politics of gay issues and the broader electorate from the 1990's. and one reason i believe vice president biden didn't wander away is because he has two people who are very important to his overall -- a counselor, deputy chief of staff to bill clinton, and bruce reed who warks the domestic policy advisor to bill clinton. they fundamentally remember, they lived through the difficult politics of gay american issues, and the broader electorate, which led to the defense of marriage act which led to don't ask, don't tell. most of what bill clinton -- what barack obama has done that will be a legacy for him probably is taking away the things that bill clinton put in place. these guys who worked for joe biden know those politics very

well. >> in a broader sense you have mitt romney supposedly with a base that's not all that fired up. what does it do for his base? >> it -- >> his base didn't like the fact that barack obama is the sitting president. so they're already pretty much there. we've had one piece of data on this so far, gallup came out with a poll, six in 10 people say this will not affect their decision at all. to the extent that there's any problem for the president -- >> what about evangelicals? >> evangelicals are very much against the president and the fact he's in the white house is a great turnout operation for the republicans. but whether -- a tiny little erosion, very tiny is among independents. 23% in this gallup poll said they would be less likely to vote for the president because of the decision. 11% said more likely. but that's a very small amount. and we are at the red hot moment here of this. the question is whether this continues on. if it's going to continue to be an issue, mitt romney is going to have to push it and there's no indication that he is going to push it at all. gwen: mitt romney not only doesn't want to push it but he also has gone even farther to

the right, i guess, on civil unions. than his predecessors. george w. bush -- >> did not endorse a federal constitutional amendment on this and mitt romney has. gwen: and this is exactly my point. which is is george w. bush was there. and dick cheney was there. but mitt romney is not -- not only that, but he also was fuzzy today about whether gays should be allowed to adopt children. so this is -- >> he had -- gwen: a problem for him. >> on the gay adoption thing and said it was fine in one interview and another did not -- talking to republicans both in congressional races and in the presidential race, the view is this, basically there are a variety of reasons why they don't want to talk to this. first of all, the base is already fine and they're lined up. two, president didn't articulate a position. there's nothing to argue against and just his personal preference that he articulated. and finally, it's about the economy. and any time the democrats, as major said, any time the democrats are talking about anything other than the economy, the republicans would like to get it back to become the economy and that's what they want to concentrate on.

>> one last president, for the president and his re-election, this the going to be a wave of enthusiasm election like 2008. this is going to be about knitting together core constituents. who believe and are highly energized. this week with the gae community the president made them -- with the gay community the president made them energized, willing to donate and go out for him. gwen: $15 million in 24 hours. >> and $15 million at the hollywood fundraiser with george clooney and katzenberg who are significant players in hollywood in that community. gwen: an interesting point which john you just touched on a little bit. which is nobody can go out tomorrow and get married because of what the president said. in fact, what he did say was he said states should still continue to handle this. and we saw what happened in north carolina. the 30th state to put this on the ballot. they said no or said yes, let's keep this law in place. so the question for me is how do we get to this path where the democratic president is endorsing states' rights and the republican challenger is saying there should be federal

intervention? >> well, on the president's side, he did two things. in "slate," his position and evolution on this, he said to gays and lesbians in america, i heard you. what you said over the years convinced me, which is a sort of active empathy -- public empathy in their views. the way advisors in the campaign and the white house talk about the president on this question of states' rights, the argument is he took a long time to get here. he's not suddenly going to say now that i'm here i'm going to tell you what to do, you on your same journey. that too is in a sense an act of empathy which is saying to those states, you're -- you haven't come along, i'm not going to force you. >> the last thing, the grand and elongated history of america on marriage has been it's a state issue. and if the president were to try to circumvent that, and say it's not a state issue, he would not only invite hostility on the question of gay marriage yes or no but on states' rights yes or no. that's a doubling down of hostility on the right side of the spectrum which he did not want to -- gwen: and no one wants to pick

this fight with him because they believe -- if you believe as many same sex marriage advocates do that same sex marriage and gay rights is the same as civil rights, you have to think back to what happened with civil rights. which is -- >> which has been the president has often said, i'm not sure this is the same thing as the sism rights struggle of the 19 -- the civil rights struggle of the 1960's. gwen: that's a different layer of the conversation and we'll get to it. and richard lugar's decisive 20-point drubbing in the indiana senate primary, he only won two counties in the entire state. the guy who beat him, state treasurer richard mourdock. >> this race is not about animosity. it's about ideas. it is about the direction of the republican party. it is about the direction of our country. gwen: with that, the senate's longest serving republican met the wrath of the tea party. and the decision by voters that he simply been in washington too long. which was the strongest force?

>> i think dick lugar lost for two reasons. he lost because conservatives -- the conservative wing of the republican party targeted him both within the party and outside groups. and they decided he was going to be their number one priority for defeat this cycle. and he lost because of dick lugar. he ran a bad campaign. he ran a campaign that did not speak to indiana voters. he did not focus on the issues that indiana voters cared about. and he could never come up with a good response to the criticisms against us. one, that a significant factor in losing this race, about how he had not owned a home in the state since 1977. he bumbled the response to that. it fed a storyline that he had been in washington too long. and it was time for someone else to come in. he also was hit by a fusillade of negative attack ads and $4.5 million -- gwen: paid for by -- >> tea party groups or other conservative groups and almost entirely negative against lugar. so he did not run the campaign he needed to run but also a

weariness within the state of his record. and for the thing that he's most known for, for foreign policy, for being the international statesman, he didn't really spend a lot of time paying attention to the bread and butter issues that indiana voters care about. he didn't have a very strong record on the economy or at least speaking to those issues. you know, one of the examples people have used is during the height of the health care debate when everyone was on the floor talking about that, he went to the floor to talk about his efforts to -- nuclear proliferation. gwen: not unimportant but not on point, either. >> but not the tone that people are talking about right now. particularly in an economic downturn. i think voters are less concerned about what's happening abroad than what's happening in their own home. >> does this mean the tea party is back? and what does it mean for the general election in the fall? >> i don't think the tea party ever left. gwen: i was going to say. >> i do think there is -- the most hostile group probably of voters right now are republican primary voters. it's not just about dick lugar. anybody that has seniority in washington, that has an r after their name, if they are not

mindful of that base, they're going to have trouble facing re-election. gwen: tea party activists in indiana this week described it to me as a purity purge. that tells you what you need to know. >> a purity purge is what then happens to the senate? either take it -- mourdock comes and if he wins or what does it mean to no longer have dick lugar in the senate? >> it's probably a little bit broader than dick lugar. we've seen it in the last couple of election cycles. there's an element of senators that were considered centrists and moderate who is have opted to leave or retired. olympia snowe of maine is one good example who decided that it was better to exit than to try -- run the race they're going to have to run to probably win. on the democratic side, ben nelson is a good example of another centrist who opted for the door versus staying. i think you're seeing a lot of the center eroding both by choice and by force. so it does create an environment where the senate is just defined by starker, brighter, more partisan lines. >> when barack obama ran in 2008, he often talked about his relationship with senator lugar. and he leveraged it to prove he was bipartisan.

and that was valuable for democrats. gwen: won indiana by 14,000 votes or something. >> exactly. that cost dick lugar. what does that tell us about the transactional value or lack of value with bipartisanship? >> well, it's funny. because mourdock, who richard -- mourdock now the nominee, he said that he actually campaigned against bipartisanship. he said i think it's a problem with washington is there's too much bipartisanship. which is sort of funny if you spend time in washington. you never -- you don't really hear that complaint very often. and he said his definition of bipartisanship is democrats agreeing with republicans. so he is sort of campaigning at the force of partisanship in washington and saying he will come here and be a -- tried and true conservative beliefs. gwen: he has to survive the general election before that happens. he's running against a democrat a. three-term congressman named joe donnellly. how is that shaping up? is he going to be easier -- is it going to be an easier shot for democrats because not running against lugar? >> if lugar was the nominee the state would have stayed

republican. mourdock does bring an element of competitiveness to the race. democrats think of him as sharon angle and christine o'donnell. >> he's not that. >> won statewide twice before and in 2010 the highest vote getter in the state of nndeeting dan coates a republican senator and earned more votes than he did. so this is not some fringe candidate that's going to be easy to beat. to the democrats' benefit, they're running a really good candidate. joe donnellly is a conservative democrat and what's known as a blue dog democrat and fiscally conservative. the problem is that he has voted -- one. democrats that voted for the president's health care bill which is going to be an issue in this race. so i think republicans are very confident. but it's probably going to force democrats to -- or republicans to spend money in that state to defend it. gwen: it's going to be interesting to see who decides to spend it and whether the democrats say this isn't really worth our time and lower hanging fruit. thanks, sue. and finally this week, the story of the foiled al qaeda plot. the plan was to bomb a plane. again. using explosives concealed in

underwear, again. and to terrorize the united states. again. it didn't happen. and therein lies the tale. but one that may not be over. because of a man named ibrahim al asiri. pierre, who's that? >> he's the master bomb maker based in yemen. diabolical mind. chemist. in training. and the big issue this week that sources were telling me is that not only has the united states government got to kill this guy, and they're being pretty blunt and needs to be taken off the map, he did something in the past year that has people in washington extremely concerned. he trained a bunch of disciples. and what i mean by disciples, he trained other master bomb makers. with the thought that if he's taken off the battlefield, this -- this threat would continue. and so now you have the prospect of a bunch of bomb makers who have gone across the planet to parts unknown developing their own plots. gwen: so when you look at this, we only hear of double agents

anymore on spy novels and movies. but when -- describe how this -- whoever this person was, who worked to expose this plot. >> right. well, we have what we believe is a british person developed by british intelligence who basically went into al qaeda, infiltrated the organization, and convinced them that he was a tried and true militant. and they built a bomb for him to take and put on a plane. well, the trick was that he came out of yemen, made his way to saudi arabia, we think, and brought the bomb with him. the big issue with this story is very fascinating. it goes back to the underwear bomber from december of 2009. and what the intelligence community found out is guess what? it's not that hard to infiltrate al qaeda. abumutallab who was the person that was engaged in that particular bombing, if you look at the justice department case on him, he simply went to yemen, made a few phone calls, and was able to meet anwar

alawalaki within a week and was a part of al qaeda. gwen: and thought maybe we can do that. >> exactly. so it was that simple. >> how sophisticated and different in kind and in the lack of detection was this underwear bomb? is this something that the broader aspect of american security, airport otherwise, is now either concerned about or terrified about? >> well, the big difference in this bomb is that the detonation system, they said, is -- was more likely to work. if you remember the december, 2009 plot, it was game, set and match. it got by all the security. it simply didn't detonate when the bad guy wanted it to detonate. they put in a number of measures that would make the thing almost certain to detonate. right now the f.b.i., this bomb is being housed at quantico a few miles from here, actually. and the f.b.i. is dissecting the thing. and they're going to run a test. they plan to make a replica and try to run it through system to see if it could get through the body scanners that we have

today. >> what is it about this particular strain of al qaeda in yemen and are they sort of the hotbed right now of al qaeda activity? >> right now, my sources are saying that yemen is most dangerous place on the planet for the west. and what they mean by that is they are obsessed with killing americans. they are obsessed with bringing down a plane. and they're very western in the way that they're going about doing things. and alawaki, killed him last fall, was basically saying to his people, get something done. get on the scoreboard. it doesn't have to be 2,000 people. get on the scoreboard. you will get exponential international coverage whatever you do. so now that's the concern. is that this group is going to try something in the span of two years, they tried, december of 2009 underwear bomb plot. in the fall of 2010 they tried to put bombs on a parcel plane and we found out about that from a spy that told us this would happen and now this. >> given that we -- it sounds

like a lot of important information has now been given to the bad guys in this case. weren't they angry about that on the hill that a double agent is now useless? >> well, again, when you have an asset like that, you want to milk it for everything you can get out of it. and there were people telling me this week, maybe he could have dragged this out. he had the bomb. he left yemen. he could have called back to yemen and said look, i got some issues. i need to drag this out further. are there any more like me that can get this done sooner? so you have the possibility of getting more information. gwen: and either way, the danger is not yet over. not finished investigating this. >> again, sadly, it's not. gwen: thank you, pierre. thank you to everyone. for more on the stories our panelists have been reporting, check out their essential reads online at pbs.org/washingtonweek. keep up with daily developments on "the pbs newshour" and we'll see you right here next week on "washington week." and to all you mamas, wannabe mamas, and kind of mamas, and play mamas out there, happy

mother's day. good night. the conversation continues online. see more from our panel about the week's top stories. it's the webcast extra. found only on "washington week" online at pbs.org. >> funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> this rock has never stood still. since 1875, we've been there for our clients through good times and bad. when their needs changed, we were there to meet them. through the years, from insurance to investment management, from real estate to retirement solutions, we've developed new ideas for the financial challenges ahead. this rock has never stood still. and that's one thing that will never change. prudential.

>> this is the at&t network. a living, breathing intelligence bringing people together, to bring new ideas to life. >> look, it's so simple. >> in here, the right minds from inside and outside the company come together. to work out an idea. adding to it from the road and improving it in the cloud all in real time. >> good idea. >> it's the at&t network. providing new ways to work together. so business works better. >> corporate funding is also provided by boeing. norfolk southern. additional funding is provided by the annenberg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to pbs stations from viewers look you. thank you. >> trusted.